P KRISHNA REDDY Vs. M NARASIMHA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application the First Additional District Judge, Chittoor sought for extension of time by six months to dispose of the appeal, A.S. No.98 of 2001, pending on his file by stating that the appellant in the appeal Mr. Mangasamudram Narasimha Reddy changed his Counsel on the last date of adjournment i.e., on 25.7.2002 and the Counsel for the appellant having addressed the arguments, filed LA. No.276 of 2002 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to receive two documents i.e., certified copy of the plaint in O.S.279/83 filed by the vendor of the respondent, and the notice issued by the daughter to his father, Mr. M. Narasimha Reddy seeking partition of the properties held by her mother who died intestate and the said LA. is pending. Since the appellant changed his Counsel on the verge of the expiry of time, by order dated 8.11.2002, I directed not only the Counsel but also the appellant to be present before this Court. Today both of them appeared before this Court and filed certified copies of the docket orders along with other orders. I understand that the suit schedule property stood in the name of late Lakshmamma wife of Narasimha Reddy, the defendant in the present suit, O.S.No.26 of 1996 and the appellant in A.S. No. 98/2001. After her death, their daughter, Vanajakshi, sought for partition of the property, since her mother died intestate, from her father. Thereafter, she also filed O.S.No.279/83 seeking partition of the property and the same was decreed and a preliminary decree was passed directing partition of the properties between the parties. At this stage, Vanajakshi sold some of the items of the suit schedule property to Mr. Krishna Reddy and he filed the present suit O.S.No. 26/96 against Narasimha Reddy father of Vanajakshi restraining him from interfering with his possession and that the suit was decreed by the Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor without reference to the preliminary decree passed by the Civil Court in O.S. No.279 of 1983.

(2.) Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree Mr. Narasimha Reddy carried the matter in appeal, A.S. No.98 of 2001, to District Court. Along with the appeal he filed I.A. No.313 of 2001 seeking injunction restraining Mr. Krishna Reddy from making any construction. At the time of arguments the Counsel seem to have submitted that Mr. Krishna Reddy is trying to alienate the properties. In those circumstances initially the First Additional District Judge by his order dated 6-9-2001 in LA. No.250 of 2001 directed Krishna Reddy not to dispose of the property until further orders. Thereafter, on the sought for modification of the order by replacing the words "dispose of " to that of " construct". In other words he wanted injunction restraining Mr. Krishna Reddy from making any construction over the property and the same was allowed by the Court.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said order, Mr. Krishna Reddy, filed CRP No.4579 of 2001.While giving notice before admission, I granted interim suspension by observing that any construction made by Krishna Reddy will be subject to the result of the appeal. Subsequently, by order dated 31.12.2001, I dismissed the Revision Petition by observing that since the Court already permitted Krishna Reddy to raise constructions if he wishes to do so by taking the risk of demolition of construction in the event of loosing the case, I directed the lower Appellate Court to dispose of the appeal within six months from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order. As per the report of the First Additional District Judge, the copy of the order was received on